Brian Butterworth wrote:
The system I wrote for ITV over 15 years ago worked down to the FRAME - that's 1/25 of a second. That is how channels are scheduled.
Scheduling systems may be accurate to 1/25 of a second, but that doesn't necessarily imply that they are equally precise. The ability to change their minds up to the last minute *and beyond* means that the accurate times need only reflect the schedulers' intentions, rather than being set in stone.
My point was that the schedule on BBC TWO has been deliberately nudged along a few minutes to gain a competitive schedule advantage, and this is being withheld. I could just ask the BBC TWO scheduler if this is the case or not, I suppose.
That would be more useful than asserting it without any evidence, certainly.
Would an EPG be useful if the titles were imprecise? 99% in such environments is terrible.
Firstly, titles *are* imprecise - they contain spelling errors and inconsistencies (eg "Brand New Top Gear" vs "Top Gear" vs "Best of Top Gear", etc) that make it very hard for PVRs to do useful things with them (eg title-based series detection). Secondly, millions of people *do* find schedules useful despite the lack of total accuracy. So 99% in such environments is adequate.
As a justification for doing nothing, yes.
Something has already been done - a standard for accurate recordings has been agreed and implemented by the broadcasters and PVR manufacturers.
I'm just thinking of the user of the PVR systems.
The people who have bought standards-compliant PVRs get accurate recordings. S - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html. Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/
